MAIN  LIBRARY. AGRICULTURE  DEPT 


MAIM 


pi 


On  the  Control  of  Cereal-arid  Forage 
Crop  Pests 

Copyright,  1920,  by  Fred  Reinlein,  1751  Derby  Street, 
Portland,  Oregon. 

Circular  No.  157  _  \  */  February  4,  1920 

IN  AS  much  as  the  European  corn  borer  has  become  well 
established  in  certain  parts  of  Massachusetts  and  New 
York,  and  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture  is  trying 
to  arouse  the  public  to  the  need  of  drastic  action  towards 
"control  and  extermination"  of  this  serious  pest,  and  at  the 
same  time  has  virtually  no  other  means  of  "control  and  ex- 
termination" to  offer  than  destruction  of  the  very  large 
number  of  food  plants  this  pest  inhabits  during  its  period  of 
rest,  this  is  a  good  time  to  throw  a  little  light  on  how  the 
Bureau  of  Entomology  proposes  to  control  certain  other  im- 
portant insect  pests,  especially  such  as  affect  cereal-and  forage 
crops,  and  also  on  means  of  control  to  accomplished  this  same 
purpose,  as  had  been  described  by  me  during  the  past  6  years. 
A  system  of  control  that  is  claimed  by  me  to  effectively 
control  the  European  corn  borer  has  recently  been  described 
by  me  in  my  Circular  No.  156,  and  the  Secretary  of  Agri- 
culture, who  for  the  past  6  years  has  done  nothing  to  make 
the  U.  S.  Entomologist  do  his  duty  in  this  matter  —  admit 
that  I  am  right,  or  show  where  I  am  wrong  —  was  once  more 
asked  to  make  the  little  man  attend  to  his  job. 


466541 


The  essential  features  of  controlling  this  new  pest  will  be 
repeated  here,  criiefly  because  I  shall  subsequently  show  that 
I  had  similar  means  described  years  ago,  and  because  the  es- 
sential idea,  with  modifications,  makes  possible  the  effective 
control  of  a  number  of  other  important  cereal-and  forage 
crop  pests. 

The  European  corn  borer  is  a  moth  that  develops  ''at 
least  two  generations  annually"  in  Massachusetts.  In  the 
case  of  this  insect  a  female  moth  emerging  in  the  spring,  lays 
on  the  average  350  eggs,  and  a  female  of  the  second  brood, 
emerging  in  July,  550.  These  eggs  are  laid  in  patches  of  from 
5  to  50  on  the  underside  of  the  leaves,  and  the  hatching  young 
in  a  few  days  after  feeding  upon  the  surface  of  the  leaves 
enter  the  plant  to  develop  therein  to  a  moth. 

As  for  natural  means  of  control,  "very  few  are  destroyed 
by  them"  (Farm  Bui.  No.  1046,  p.  2).  It  will  readily  be 
seen  then,  that  mere  destruction,  usually  by  burning,  of  its 
host  plants,  \vhich  is  to  include  "the  stubble  and  upper  part 
of  the  root,"  and  which  host  plants  include,  on  suspicion, 
practically  every  plant  of  herbaceous  growth  such  as  annual 
weeds,  is  necessarily  inadequate,  no  matter  at  what  cost  in 
money  and  loss  of  fertility  and  loss  of  waterholding  power  of 
the  soil  it  may  be  carried  out,  to  prevent  the  survival  of  a 
considerable  percentage  of  larvae,  and  consequently  is  sure  to 
result  in  heavy  loss  the  following  year. 

The  means  of  control  devised  by  me,  take  advantage  of 
the  fact  that  the  moths  prefer  to  oviposit  on  corn  bearing  a 
tassel,  or  just  coming  into  the  tassel  stage.  Most  of  the  corn 


in  Massachusetts  reaches  the  tassel  stage  by  July  1st.  The 
first  brood  of  moths  oviposits  during  the  3  or  4  preceding 
weeks.  If  no  corn  is  then  in  tassel,  and  none  but  early  sweet 
corn  is,  the  moths  deposit  their  eggs  upon  other  plants  bearing 
a  green  seed  head.  Such  plants  are  then  plentiful  among  - 
grasses  and  weeds.  My  plan  provides  for  a  patch  of  just  such 
grasses  or  suitable  weeds.  It  is  extremely  easy  to  provide 
such  a  patch,  barnyard  grass  for  instance  making  an  excellent 
trap  plant.  This  patch  is  to  be  mowed  closely,  cured  and 
baled  before  any  moths  are  ready  to  emerge.  The  less  the 
brood  was  developed  at  the  time  of  the  cutting,  the  less  neces- 
sary will  be  the  baling,  since  the  greater  will  be  the  mortality 
because  of  the  drying  up  of  the  food  supply,  while  the  insect 
is  yet  immature.  Naturally,  the  less  seed  heads  are  allowed 
to  be  present  outside  of  this  patch  at  ovipositing  time  through 
mowing  them  off  previously  or  subsequently  to  the  beginning 
of  oviposition,  and  before  the  resulting  inmature  stages  can 
survive  in  spite  of  the  cutting,  the  better  will  be  the  result. 
We  thus  control  the  pest,  simply  by  growing  a  crop  of  good 
hay  at  a  stipulated  time. 

The  second  brood  of  moths  emerges  during  the  last  week 
of  July — 2  to  3  wreeks  after  corn  has  passed  the  pollination 
stage.  My  plan  provides  for  a  trap  patch  of  corn  sown  rather 
thinly  for  fodder  at  such  time  that  it  will  be  just  coming  into 
the  tassel  stage  by  this  time.  This  patch  will  then  attract 
most  of  the  moths  for  oviposition  and  thus  very  largely  pro- 
tect the  ear  corn  against  infestation  by  the  comparatively 
small  number  of  moths  that  have  been  allowed  to  develop  on 


plants  other  than  the  trap  patch.  This  corn  grown  for  fod- 
der or  silage  is  carefully  utilized  during  winter  which  reduces 
the  pest  without  any  further  fuss  and  fumble  to  the  minimum 
for  spring  infestation. 

What  is  wanted  now  in  the  interest  of  the  public  weal 
is  that  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  give  the  Entomologist  a 
da>  off  from  other  pressing  duties  of  his  office,  real  or  fancied, 
so  that  he  may  have  time  to  define  what  is  what  in  this  method 
of  controlling  what,  is  "probably  the  most  injurious  plant  pest 
yet  introduced,"  as  described  on  pages  1  to  11  of  my  Circular 
No.  156. 

Sucidentally,  the  Entomologist  has  been  for  3  years 
wanting  to  show  why  such  a  trap  patch  of  late  cotton  or  corn 
would  not  concentrate  the  bollworm  or  corn  ear  wcrm  into 
hibernating  quarters,  and  by  plowing  the  ground  before 
emergence  begins  in  the  spring,  keep  the  bulk  of  the  moths 
from  emerging  in  any  given  locality. 

If  the  borer  finds  its  way  to  sections  where  it  can  produce 
3  broods,  the  dates  given  have  to  be  correspondingly  advanced, 
and  an  extra  sowing  of  corn  made  to  tassel  by  about  August 
20. 

In  the  South,  this  insect  can  produce  4  to  5  generations. 
The  dates  as  given  for  Massachusetts  have  then-  to  be*  still 
further  advanced  and  the  use  of  trap  crops,  corn  or  other  suit- 
able crops  has  to  be  carried  on  longer  in  the  fall. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  should  this  pest  find 
its  way  to  the  cotton  belt,  it  would  prove  to  be  a  far  more 
formidable  pest  to  cotton — under  the  crude  method  of  control 

—  4  — 


advocated  at  present  by  the  Bureau  of  Entomology-  than 
either  the  boll  weevil  or  the  pink  boll  worm.  In  that  case 
the  first  brood  of  moths  can  be  made  to  oviposit  on  a  trap 
patch  of  grasses,  while  the  later  broods,  on  cotton,  could  not  be 
controlled  except  by  the  means  described  by  me  in  my  Circular 
No.  15:2,  pp.  1  to  16,  for  the  control  of  the  boll  weevil,  the 
boll  worm  and  many  other  cotton  insects,  including,  as  ex- 
plained on  pages  33  to  35  of  my  Circular  No.  152  and  pages 
12  to  18  of  my  Circular  No.  154,  the  pink  boll  worm.  This 
method,  in  substance,  consists  in  using  poultry  to  pick  on  the 
fallen  squares  containing  juicy  grubs  such  as  of  the  boll 
weevil,  and  concentrating  oviposition  of  the  boll  weevil  and 
the  boll  worm  in  the  late  summer  to  a  late  sown  trap  patch  of 
cotton. 

The  European  corn  borer  would  readily  breed  on  sugar 
cane.  The  first  brood  could  be  allowed  to  develop  on  grasses 
and  weeds  surrounding  the  cane  field.  These  grasses  and 
weeds  would  have  to  be  cut  at  such  time,  that  no  adult  can 
develop.  The  subsequent  generations  can  be  controlled  the 
same  as  the  4  generations  of  the  sugar  can  moth  borer,  de- 
scribed on  pages  11  to  16  of  my  Circular  No.  56.  In  essence, 
this  method  of  control  consists  in  sowing  late  corn  at  in- 
tervals and  using  it  for  silage  and  to  trap  the  insect  into 
hibernating  quarters. 

There  are  other  important  insects  that  can  be  similarly 
controlled.  One  of  these  is  the  sorghum  midge.  "In  addition 
to  the  many  varieties  of  sweet  sorghum,  the  sorghum  midge 
is  known  to  infest  broom  corn,  kafir,  Johnson  grass  and  milo. 


Jn  one  instance  the  writer,"  (Mr.  W.  Harper  Dean)  "reared 
a  single  adult  from  the  common  fcxtail  grass  (Setaria  glauca) 
and  Mr.  George  G.  Ainslie  has  also  reared  the  midge  from  the 
"grass  Sieglingia  sesleroides"  ( Ent.  Bull.  85,  p.  44). 

"In  the  spring  the  midge  appears  with  the  first  Johnson  grass 
and  sorghum,  and  as  this  grass  heads  .considerably  before  the 
cultivated  sorghum,  it  may  be  said  that  by  the  time  the  latter 
has  headed,  the  midge  has  become  sufficiently  abundant  on 
the  grass  to  make  the  first  sorghum  infestation  a  neavy  one. 
In  the  latitude  of  San  Antonio.  *Tex.,  the  first  midges  to  be 
found  during  the  season  of  1909,  were  found  actively  oviposit- 
ing in  Johnson  grass  on  May  14.  At  this  date  the  neighboring 
sorghum  had  not  headed,  and  it  was  not  until  June  19  that 
the  first  brood  emerged  from  the  sorghum,  which  puts  the  date 
of  this  first  infestation  at  approximately  June  5"  (p.  53). 
"From  what  has  been  said  previously  in  regard  to  the  midge 
in  relation  to  Johnson  grass,  it  is  a  self-evident  fact  that  this 
grass  furnishes  the  key  to  the  situation  (p.  55).  "The  de- 
struction of  Johnson  grass  :s  one  of  the  most  vital  factors  in 
midge  control"  (p.  58). 

Destroying  Johnson  grass  will  not  control  the  midge,  be- 
cause the  midge  could  no  doubt  breed  in  a  great  number  of 
other  grasses  if  it  were  deprived  of  its  usual  food  plant  early 
in  the  season.  Take  a  similar  case:  The  bollweevil  from  its 
introduction  into  the  United  States  in  1892  to  1913,  was  not 
known  to  feed  and  breed  on  anything  but  cotton,  but  evidently 
as  the  result  of  trying  to  starve  it  out  bv  the  early  destruction 
of  all  of  the  plants  in  the  fall  it  was  found  feeding  in  1913  by 

—  6  — 


Mr.  B.  R.  Coad,  of  the  Bureau  of  Entomology,  on  Hibiscus 
syriacus,  and  actually  experimentally  reared  on  this  plant  by 
him,  and  partly  also  on  other  plants.  Thus  "by  alternating 
food  plants  "Experimentally ^  which  is  less  favorable  than 
would  be  the  case  under  field  conditions),"  it  was  found  that 
the  weevils  have  a  wide  range  of  hitherto  unsuspected  adapti- 
bility"  (U.  S.  Dep.  A.  Bull.  No.  231,  p.  3). 

I  had  shown  from  this  for  four  years  past  that  with  a  cot- 
tonfield  totally  infested  by  the  bollweevil  in  the  early  fall,  de- 
struction of  all  of  the  plants,  and,  in  fact,  the  mere  absence 
of  squares  suitable  for  oviposition  would  force  the  weevil  to 
accustom  itself  to  breed  in  plants  other  than  cotton,  which  of 
course  would  in  time  render  the  Bureau's  old  standby  of  con- 
trol— early  destruction  of  stalks — entirely  inefficient,  and  make 
control  of  the  weevil  all  the  more  difficult,  and  that  therefore 
the  only  sound  principle  of  control  rests  in  concentrating 
the  weevil  upon  its  original  and  preferred  foodplant,  and 
attacking  it  there  by  having  poultry  pick  on  the  fallen 
squares  and  secure  adults  as  described  in  detail  in  my  Circular 
No.  152,  pp.  1  to  16. 

In  the  case  of  the  sorghum  midge  the  abundant  supply  of 
Johnson  grass  always  present  in  the  past  simply  thus  far  has 
not  forced  the  midge  to  oviposit  on  any  grass  of  second 
choice  to  any  great  extent.  "Jonnson  grass  being  the  first  to 
head  and  bloom  gives  the  midge  a  good  start  and  by  the  time 
sorghum  is  headed  there  is  a  large  brood  of  midges  from  the 
grass  to  infest  it"  (p.  55).  Exactly — if  you  let  them  mature  on 
it.  But  my  plan  provides  for  a  large  patch  of  Johnson  grass 

7 


to  be  cut  before  the  immature  stages  therein  have  sufficiently 
developed  to  emerge  as  adults.  Of  course  the  trappatch  will 
be  the  more  efficient  the  more  the  seed  heads  of  Johnson 
grass  nearby  are  made  to  serve  as  traps  and  are  finally  kept 
down  before  adults  can  develop  through  pasturing  or  mowing. 
"Johnson  grass  makes  a  heavy  yield  of  excellent  hay  if  cut 
before  the  seeds  are  formed  ..."  Farm  Bull.  No.  509,  p.  ?').  It 
is  quite  possible  to  eradicate  it  in  fields  planted  by  itself  "with- 
out excessive  labor  or  expense.  .  .  .  The  only  expense  is  for 
the  extra  plowing  and  harrowing  and  that  is  more  than  repaid 
by  the  additional  crop  .  .  ."  (p.  7).  Also  see  Farmers'  Bulletin 
No.  279 :  A  method  of  eradicating  Johnson  grass.  But  as 
Johnson  grass  also  occurs  in  mixture  with  other  grasses  and 
weeds  where  proper  shallow  plowing  and  harrowing  for  eradi- 
cation cannot  be  employed,  if  we  were  to  adopt  the  Bureau's 
plan  of  controlling  the  sorghum  midge  by  eradicating  the 
Johnson  grass,  we  would  have  to  dig  all  these  scattered  root 
stocks  up,  simply  to  have  new  grass  sown  through  seeds  pass- 
ing through  the  stomachs  of  birds  and  other  animals  and  to 
find  that  a  large  number  of  other  grasses  are  also  capable  of 
sustaining  the  midge. 

That  Mr.  Dean  does  not  know  how  to  eradicate  Johnson 
grass  is  plain  from  the  following,  under  heading  of  Destruction 
of  Johnson  grass :  "...  It  should  be  burned  over  whenever 
discovered  and  such  areas  plowed  in  the  spring  to  prevent  an 
earh7  crop  of  heads"  (p.  58).  The  fact  is,  such  plowing  prevents 
an  early  crop  of  heads  all  right,  but  keeps  the  grass  growing 
from  year  to  year"  .  .  .  The  small  isolated  patches  of  the  grass 

—  8  — 


in  the  fence  corners  will  carry  the  species  over  winter  in  the 
seed  .  .  ."  (p.  581).  Exactly.  And  if  these  heads  were  cut 
in  the  spring  before  adults  can  develop  and  were  subsequently 
cut  whenever  they  became  nearly  old  enough  to  mature  a  crop 
of  adult  midges,  these  same  patches  would  constantly  act  as 
traps  and  keep  the  sorghum  clear  to  that  extent.  It  will  be 
readily  seen  that  the  best  results  for  a  given  effort  are  secured 
by  making  the  trap  patch  of  Johnson  grass  as  far  as  practicable 
the  only  oviposition  material  for  the  time  being. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  it  will  be  possible  to 
work  out  a  similar  method  of  trapping  for  the  control  of  the 
wheat  midge. 

Of  wheat  insects  the  Hessian  fly  stands  first,  with  the 
joint  worm  second.  The  Hessian  fly,  on  winter  wheat,  can  be 
most  easily  controlled  by  providing  a  trappatch  in  the  fall, 
having  it  sprout  at  the  same  time  as  volunteer  wheat.  This 
trappatch,  and  other  places  where  volunteer  wheat  freely 
occurs,  will  thus  attract  the  bulk  of  the  insects.  The  main 
crop  is  sown  comparatively  late,  the  date  depending  primarily 
upon  rainfall  affecting  the  early  or  late  emergence  of  the  flies 
in  the  fall  as  the  case  may  be,  and  the  development  of  volun- 
teer wheat.  The  aim  naturally  is  to  have  the  flies  oviposit  on 
the  trappatch  and  volunteer  wheat  while,  the  main  crop  is 
sprouting.  This  trappatch  and  the  places  where  volunteer 
wheat  freely  occurs  must  be  plowed  unHer  in  the  late  fall  or 
anyway  not  later  than  in  the  spring  before  emergence  of 
the  flies  begins.  Thus  a  field  the  previous  year  in  wheat  may- 
be allowed  to  carry  winter  wheat  up  to  the  time  of  the  begiu- 

9 


ning  of  emergence  of  the  flies  in  the  spring  to  be  then  plowed 
for  some  crop.  This  allows  of  seeding  the  wheat  crop  to  grass 
or  clover  in  the  late  winter  the  year  before  and  gives  grazing 
during  the  fall  and  early  spring  when  otherwise  because  of 
insufficient  rainfall  it  might  not  be  possible  to  secure  any 
profitable  returns. 

The  joint  worm,  according  to  official  remedies  discussed 
in  Farmers'  Bulletin  No.  1006,  p.  12,  is  to  be  controlled  by  let 
ting  a  stubble  of  about  ten  inches  stand  and  plowing  this  down 
deeply  during  the  summer  and  early  fall.  With  the  ground 
usually  dry  like  a  brick  at  this  time,  this  is  some  job,  however 
a  tractor  might  be  said  to  do  away  with  this  difficulty.  In  any 
case  this  with  such  a  quantity  of  loose  combustible  matter 
buried  usually  will  cause  this  upper  layer  of  soil  by  breaking 
the  capillary  attraction  at  the  d,epth  of  the  plowing,  anyway, 
deeply,  to  dry  out  like  a  bone,  in  that  case  rendering  it  unlit 
to  grow  anything  before  next  spring.  Moreover  as  it  is  best 
of  farm  practice  to  sow  wheat  to  clover  and  grass  in  late  winter 
and  early  spring,  if  this  plan  is  followed  we  have  a  crop  coming 
on  after  the  wheat  is  off,  where  otherwise  we  have  but  a  pile 
of  trouble  to  bury  the  stubble.  Why  not  then  sow  all  the 
wheat  fields  to  clover  and  grass  and  then  after  leaving  a  stub- 
ble of  ten  inches,  go  over  with  a  mower,  cutting  close  to  the 
«"rornd,  fitting  the  mower  with  an  attachment  to  catch  the  clip- 
pings. These  clippings  need  not  be  burned.  They  could  be 
spread  on  some  low  ground  where  the  water  drains  during  the 
winter.  This  excess,  of  moisture  coupled  with  thf  thawing 
and  freezing  would  kill  the  larvae  or  pupae  within.  The  less 

—10— 


cold,  the  more  wet  must  be  the  location  chosen.  Also,  if  the 
weather  be  hot  and  dry  as  it  usually  is  in  mi.istmimer,  ihe 
mere  clipping  and  drying  of  the  stubble  on  the  bare  gionnd 
for  weeks  is  likely  to  kill  all  or  most  of  the  larvae. 

A  similar  case  where  the  Bureau  of  Entomology  as  a  moan.^ 
of  control,  recommends  the  eradication  of  an  early  foodplarit, 
and  where  instead  the  using  of  that  early  foodplam  for  a  trap- 
patch  turns  failure  into  success  is  to  be  found  in  what  is  iheir 
solution  of  the  problem  of  controlling  chalcis  ny  infestation  in 
alfalfa  seed.  This  problem  and  its  solution,  as  giv.en  by  the 
Bureau  is  discussed  in  Farmers'  Bulletin  No.  63G. 

As  to  food  plants:  "The  cloverseed  chalcis-fly  confines 
its  work  entirely  to  the  seeds  of  clover,  bur  clover  and  alfalfa 
,  .  .  "(p.  3).  "Mr.  F.  M.  Webster  shows  the  distribution  of 
the  alfalfa-seed  chalcis  as  probably  covering  the  entire  United 
States"  (p.  3). 

The  following  list  of  means  of  control  is  given :  "Har- 
vesting severely  infested  crops  "(that  is,  avoid  trying  to  grow 
a  seed  crop),"  clearing  fence  lines  and  ditch  banks;  winter  cul- 
tivation, destroying  the  screenings,  burning  fences  and 
checkridges,  planting  clean  seeds,  cutting  the  seed  crop  "(at 
such  time  as  the  most  possible  can  be  gotten  out  of  it,  what- 
ever that  may  be),"  destroying  burclover,  cleaning  the  seeds* 
and  necessity  of  organized  efforts." 

As  for  the  value  of  destroying  burclover  as  a  means  of 
control,  you  read  on  page  9 :  "In  some  localities  bur  clover 
grows  abundantly  and  matures  its  seed  pods  in  early  spring. 
The  chalcis-flies  thus  have  already  completed  the  development 

—11— 


of  an  entire  generation  in  the  seeds  of  these  plants  before  the 
alfalfa  seed  pods  have  developed  in  the  fields.  Under  such 
conditions  it  would  be  well  to  destroy  the  burclover  pods  by 
burning  the  fence  lines  in  the  spring.  This  can  frequently  be 
done  after  the  plants  mature  and  before  the  alfalfa  seed  crop 
comes  on." 

With  all  vegetation  then  in  sap,  it  is  up  to  the  Bureau  to 
show  how  "it  would  be  well"  to  try  to  burn  the  fence  lines. 
Palpably  what  burclover  would  be  growing  in  fence  lines 
would  represent  only  a  small  part  of  the  total  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  alfalfa  field  and  burning  such  plants  mixed  with  green 
ones  is  out  of  the  question. 

If  a  trappatch  of  burclover  be  sown,  this  will  attract  the 
bulk  of  the  flies  and  if  allowed  to  mature  seed  it  will  as  stated 
by  the  Bureau  develop  an  entire  generation  to  later  find  its 
way  to  the  alfalfa.  On  the  other  hand  if  this  burclover  be  cut 
before  the  larvae  are  sufficiently  developed  as  not  to  be  affected 
by  the  drying  of  this  food  supply  through  cutting,  this  will  kill 
them.  This,  especially  if  also  surrounding  volunteer  burclover 
be  cut,  will,  necessarily,  to  a  certain  extent  ,protect  the  alfalfa. 
But  with  the  blooms  and  young  seeds  thus  cut,  the  flies  then 
yet  emerging  from  hibernating  quarters  or  from  early  breed- 
ing places,  possibly  including  white  clover,  not  destroyed 
while  in  bloom,  will  oviposit  on  "clover,"  probably  including 
white  clover,  then  also  inviting  oviposition,  and  intermediate 
in  time  of  blooming  between  burclover  and  alfalfa,  hence  to 
protect  the  alfalfa  well,  a  patch  of  clover  of  a  kind  that  is  inter- 
mediate in  bloom  between  burclover  and  alfalfa  must  also  be 

—12— 


handled  the  same  as  the  burclover.  Red  clover  just  fills  the 
bill.  This  clover  cut  when  the  alfalfa  begins  to  come  well  into 
bloom  will  then  serve  as  a  second  check  and  thus  reduce  in- 
festation of  alfalfa  to  the  minimum. 

Not  only  is  this  course  of  thus  using  a  trappatch  of  clover 
necessary  if  alfalfa  is  to  be  well  protected  against  the  chalcis- 
fly,  but  it  also  necessary  if  a  clover  seed  crop  is  to  be  protected 
against  the  clover  midge,  since  such  cutting  of  the  trappatch 
destroys  the  spring  brood  of  the  clover  midge  and  leaves  the 
next  cutting  free  of  infestation,  offering  a  splendid  opportunity 
for  a  heavy  seed  crop. 

Naturally  cases  where  a  crop  can  be  protected  by  growing 
a  trappatch  of  the  same  or  a  similar  plant  are  comparatively 
rare.  Take  the  case  of  the  smoky  cranefly,  described  in  U.  S. 
D.  A.  Ent.  Bull.  No.  85,  part  vii.  There  is  a  whole  family  of 
craneflies,  comprising  several  genera  and  many  species,  each 
present  as  adults  for  a  certain  period  of  the  year,  varying  in 
time  of  emergence  from  March  to  October.  There  are 
aquatic,  semiaquatic  and  terrestrial  species. 

As  to  records  of  damage,  you  find  among  others : 
".  .  .  Dr.  S.  A.  Forbes  (1888)  reports  a  very  gen- 
eral and  serious  outbreak  of  tipulids  (Tipula  bicornis) 
in  grass  and  clover  meadows  throughout  southern  and  central 
Illinois,  many  pastures  ind  hayfields  being  almost  completely 
ruined  ..."  also  "  .  .  .  Mr.  R.  W.  Doane  .  .  .  states  that 
thousands  of  acres  of  wheat  and  grasslands  and  clover  fields 
were  absolutely  striped  of  verdure"  (p.  121). 

The  eggs  are  laid  into  the  ground.     'The  larvae,  which 

—13— 


often  occur  in  enormous  numbers,  as  many  as  200  having  been 
found  in  an  area  covering  a  little  over  a  square  foot,  feed  upon 
the  roots  of  various  plants.  ...  In  feeding,  these  larvae  move 
about  in  the  ground  quite  freely,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  small 
molehill-like  ridges  they  leave  in  going  from  plant  to  plant, 
just  under  the  surface  of  the  ground.  They  "(Tipula  infus- 
cata  (a  kind  to  appear  as  adults  in  October)"  become  full- 
grown  about  the  middle  of  July,  form  perpendicular  cells  about 
three  to  four  inches  underground  when  they  pupate  (p.  127), 
The  pupa  then  by  means  of  the  abdominal  spines  works  its  way 
to  the  surface  from  which  it  protrudes  two-thirds  of  its  entire 
length"  (p.  128).  "The  adults  .  .  .  are  about  in  great  numbers 
among  the  tall,  rank  grass,  clover  and  weeds,  from  which  they 
rise  awkwardly  as  one  approaches,  flying  but  a  few  yards  be- 
fore alighting"  (p.  126). 

Natural  enemies,  at  times  at  least,  manifestly  do  not 
amount  to  anything,  else  we  would  not  have  cases  of  nearly 
200  larvae  to  the  square  foot.  However,  the  Bureau  of  En- 
tomology on  page  129  gives  a  list  of  86  kinds  of  birds  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  findings  of  the  Bureau  of  Biological  Survey 
feed  on  Tipulidae  or  their  eggs.  Among  the  larger  birds  thus 
feeding  there  are  varieties  of  jays,  blackbirds,  cukoos,  and,  one 
kind  each  of  nighthawks,  woodpecker,  grouse,  snipe  and  gulL 
The  inference  then  simply  is  that  these  birds,  and  other  birds, 
under  primitive  conditions  readily  hold  the  pest  in  check,  but 
that  with  most  of  the  lands  given  over  to  agriculture  the  birds 
do  not  find  even  at  best  the  necessary  favorable  conditions  to 
multiply  sufficiently  to  keep  the  vast  areas  protected. 


Of  "remedial  and  preventive  measures,"  that  is,  artificial 
means  of  control,  the  Bureau  recommends  in  the  case  of  Tip- 
ula  infuscata,  "to  plow  infested  sod  under  in  the  early  fall,  and 
either  run  the  fields  into  corn,  potatoes  and  such  crops,  or  to 
leave  the  land  fallow  the  ensuing  summer.  Pastures  and  hay- 
fields,  in  localities  where  this  species  is  known  to  be  abundant, 
should  be  grazed  off  by  the  middle  of  September,  and  kept  so 
until  late  in  November,  as  the  adult  flies  usually  congregate  in 
rank  growth  of  grass,  clover,  weeds,  etc.,  and  there  lay  their 
eggs"  (p.  131). 

Thus  you  have  at  least  one  case  where  the  Bureau  finds 
it  handy  to  have  some  rank  growth  outside  of  fields  and  pas- 
tures— growth  on  waste  land  as  they  call  it — to  serve  as  ovi- 
position  ground,  anyway  up  to  late  in  November.  With  the 
pastures  and  hayfields  kept  thus  grazed  not  many  insects  of 
any  kind  will  stay  there — good,  bad  or  neutral — nor  will  max- 
imum yieds  be  thus  secured  or  will  these  pastures  and  hay- 
fields  winter  as  well  or  hold  water  and  snow  as  well  as  if  a 
heavier  growth  had  been  left  on  in  the  fall.  Besides  in  the 
case  of  the  earlier  kind  this  does  does  not  work  at  all.  Most 
species  emerge  from  March  on  to  past  mid-summer  and  thus 
lay  their  eggs  where  they  see  fit,  live  as  larvae  during  summer, 
pupate  and  emerge  during  the  first  part  of  the  next  season. 
In  other  words,  the  Bureau  has  no  remedy  for  these  species  at 
all. 

There  is,  however,  a  perfectly  satisfactory  remedy,  a  remedy 
evolved  along  the  line  of  the  U.  S.  Entomologist's  pet  hobby — 
the  use  of  natural  enemies  in  the  control  of  injurious  insects — 

—15— 


a  remedy  I  had  during  the  past  four  years  specifically  shown  to 
be  the  best  means  of  controlling  certain  highly  important  and 
injurious  insects.  This  remedy  consists  in  the  judicious  and 
extensive  use  of  poultry. 

In  the  case  of  the  smoky  cranefly  you  have  an  insect, 
which  as  adults,  spend  their  their  time  in  low-growing  vege- 
tation. While  more  or  less  hidden  during  day  time,  poultry,  if 
given  access  would  stir  up  many  and  be  able  to  secure  these 
"awkward  flies."  Also  the  larvae,  through  the  small  ridges 
they  leave  attract  the  attention  of  poultry,  they  being  razorial 
birds.  Further,  the  transformation  from  pupa  to  adult  takes 
place  with  the  pupa  two-thirds  protruding  above  the  surface 
of  the  ground,  and  seems  to  require  a  day  or  two  at  least,  thus 
the  helpless  pupa  also  becomes  exposed  to  attacks  by  poultry. 
If  a  gull,  with  its  large  size  and  rather  clumsy  habits  .on  land, 
finds  it  feasible  to  include  the  cranefly  in  one  form  or  the  other 
in  its  menu,  why  should  not  poultry  do  so  likewise  ? 

It  was  four  years  ago  in  an  effort  to  evolve  a  practical 
method  of  controlling  the  NewT  Mexico  range  caterpillar  that 
I  first  came  to  realize  the  great  economic  good  that  would 
result  were  the  inherent  possibilities  of  poultry  as  insect  de- 
stroyers more  fully  developed.  I  pointed  out  in  my  Circular 
No.  146  that  the  New  Mexico  range  caterpillar  exists  as  egg, 
laid  in  clusters  around  the  stems  of  weeds  and  grasses  from 
about  October  1  till  June  1,  being  thus  exposed  to  attack  by 
poultry  during  all  of  this  long  time  in  this  form.  As  the  eggs 
hatch  the  young  caterpillars  up  till  they  are  about  an  inch 
long  do  not  carrv  any  decidedly  poisonous  hairs  and  may  be 

—16— 


eaten  by  poultry  in  quantity  with  impunity,  in  as  much  as 
robins  are  known  to  be  able  to  eat  them. 

"Robbins  .  .  .  seem  to  feed  only  on  the  smaller  larvae. 
The  spines  of  the  large  larvas  are  capable  of  producing  much 
greater  urticating  effect  and  are  possibly  disagreeable  to  the 
birds  on  that  account  Ent.  Bull.  No.  85,  part  V,  p.  93).  Of 
course  poultry  and  other  birds  are  expected,  and  as  a  matter  of 
fact  are,  under  usual  conditions,  compelled  to  eat  of  these  and 
similar  caterpillars  only  as  a  part  of  mixed  diet. 

The  period  when  the  insect  is  from  an  inch  to  two  and  a 
half  inches  long  is  only  about  six  weeks,  when  it  changes  to 
pupa,  usually  congregating  in  clusters  among  the  stems  of 
grasses,  in  which  stage  it  is  known  to  be  greedily  eaten  by 
skunks.  Why  not  then  also  by  poultry?  And  these  pupae 
change  to  moths  that  hang  during  day  time  in  plain  view  on 
stems  of  grasses,  simply  waiting  to  be  picked  off  by  poultry. 
These  moths,  I  had  pointed  out  in  my  Circular  No.  146,  taken 
in  great  quantities  alone,  might  be  also  injurious  because  of 
their  hairy  covering,  but  taken  with  plenty  of  seeds  and,  grit, 
as  would  be  the  case  on  the  range,  it  is  most  likely  poultry 
will  find  them  beneficial  eating. 

The  Bureau  of  Entomology,  instead  of  aiming  to  live  up  to 
its  purpose  of  promoting  entomological  knowledge  in  the 
broadest  sense,  did  not  want  to  meet  the  various  pending  is- 
sues, but  finally,  in  1317,  told  Hon.  John  E.  Raker,  member  of 
Congress  from  California,  who  aimed  to  get  at  the  true  facts, 
that  my  "plan  of  control  consists  in  that  turkeys  be  secured  in 
sufficient  numbers  to  destroy  the  insect.  It  has  been  shown, 

—17— 


however,  that  on  account  of  the  poisonous  hairs  borne  by  the 
caterpillars,  turkeys  will  not  feed  upon  it." 

When  Mr.  Raker  was  told  that  I  had  expressly  disclaimed 
that  poultry  would  eat  the  insect  in  the  nearly  grown  and  full 
grown  caterpillar  stage,  and  that  what  the  Bureau  was  wanted 
to  define  its  position  on  was  whether  or  not  poultry  will  attack 
the  insect  in  all  other  stages  which  take  up  ten  months  out  of 
the  twelve  in  a  year,  the  Bureau  declined  to  do  so,  but  said 
I  am  wrong  on  this  and  all  other  points  I  wanted  them  to  de- 
fine their  position  on. 

That  the  position  is  sound  is  shown  by  the  fact  as  stated 
more  in  detail  on  page  12  of  my  Circular  Nq.  155,  from  D.  A. 
Bulletin  No.  124,  p.  28,  that  Mr.  Charles  Springer  of  Cimarron, 
N.  M.,  hires  a  boy  to  herd  an  immense  flock  of  turkeys  on  the 
range,  so  that  they  may  feed  upon  the  grasshoppers,  destroying 
the  grama  grass  and  other  range  grasses.  Cimarron  is  in  the 
center  of  range  caterpillar  infestation. 

As  grasshoppers  live  during  the  cool  part  of  the  year, 
about  seven  months,  as  eggs  in  che  soil,  it  is  plain  that  the 
turkeys  must  live  during  this  time  on  something  else  and  I  had 
pointed  out  for  four  years  past  that  the  egg  clusters  of  the 
range  caterpillar  on  weed  stems  are  that  the  most  easily 
available  thing  to  eat  there  is.  Efforts  to  have  the  State  Dele- 
gation to  Congress  from  New  Mexico  do  something  to  have 
the  Bureau  of  Entomology  to  go  into  details  in  these  matters 
were  futile.  Also  as  explained  on  pages  7  to  9  of  my  Circular 
No.  154,  the  State  Biologist-Entomologist  of  New  Mexico  out- 
right claimed  he  wanted  to  be  shown  that  the  use  of  poultry 

—18— 


is  practical,  said  that  the  whole  matter  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
Bureau  of  Entomology  and  that  he  considered  their  proposed 
plan  of  control — relying  on  the  work  of  parasitic  insects  to  be 
better.  In  practice,  apparently,  we  find  Mr.  Springer  finds  my 
plan  pays,  and  pays  big 

Parasitic  insects  are  not  under  the  control  of  man.  All 
that  man  can  do  is  to  introduce  si'iC  hinsects.  Naturally,  when  a 
foreign,  injurious  insect  is  introduced  without  the  parasites 
that  keep  it  in  check  at  home,  the  introduction  of  such  para- 
sites is  highly  beneficial  and  such  action  is  a  simple  matter  of 
common  sense.  But  such  parasites  would  become  extinct  were 
not  their  host  or  hosts  be  kept  from  becoming  extinct. 

Among  other  points  at  issue  Mr.  Raker  had  also  asked 
them  to  define  their  position  in  regard  to  my  method  of  con- 
trolling the  bollweevil.  I  had  pointed  out,  that  inasmuch  as 
the  bollweevil  is  adapting  itself  to  go  without  cotton  for  a 
long  time  and  feeding  and  breeding  in  plants  related  to  cotton, 
apparently  as  the  result  of  the  Bureau's  plan  of  control  by  try- 
ing to  starve  it  out  by  destroying  the  stalks  as  early  in  the 
fall  as  no  more  cotton  can  be  produced  because  of  the  ravages 
of  the  pest,  if  the  weevil  be  thus  forced  to  adapt  itself  to  new 
food  plants,  it  would  be  indefinitely  more  difficult  to  control  it 
on  cotton,  at  least,  if  restricted  to  the  means  of  control  the 
Bureau  has  to  offer,  since  it  could  breed  then  earlier  in  the 
spring  through  breeding  now  on  other  plants,  aggravating 
subsequent  infestation  of  cotton  and  could  also  breed  later  in 
the  fall  on  plants  other  than  cotton,  causing  a  heavier  sur- 
vival than  if  it  were  confined  to  cotton  as  a  food  plant  and 

-19— 


cotton  had  been  left  standing  till  frost  thus  finally  destroying 
all  of  what  value  there  originally  was  in  early  destruction  of 
the  plants  as  a  means  of  control. 

My  plan  of  control  provides  for  an  occasional  patrol  of 
the  surroundings  of  the  cottonfields  in  the  spring  by  poultry 
for  weevils,  and  of  course  also  other  insects  hibernating  out- 
side and  working  into  the  field,  it  provides  for  the  occasional 
examination  of  these  borders  and  the  edges  of  the  field  by 
poultry  for  weevils  and  giving  poultry  the  run  of  the  field  as 
squares  would  begin  to  fall,  the  claim  being  made  that  poultry 
would  thus  both  secure  adults  and  pick  on  fallen  infested 
squares  each  representing  a  juicy  grub;  it  further  provided 
for  leaving  in  the  center  of  the  field  a  patch  about  the  hun- 
dredth part  of  the  whole  to  be  planted  late  to  cotton,  the  ob- 
ject being  to  concentrate  the  adults  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
growing  season  to  the  abundant  squares  there  produced  and, 
by  feeding  poultry  a  little  grain  there,  keep  them  sufficiently 
employed  to  keep  down  the  number  of  the  adults  and  the 
grubs  in  fallen  squares,  resulting  in  absolute  control  of  the 
bollweevil.  But  Mr.  Raker  was  told  my  plan  consists  in  that 
chickens  be  provided  in  sufficient  numbers  to  destroy  all  or 
most  of  the  weevils  as  soon  as  they  made  their  way  into  the 
fields. 

We  were  then  at  war  and,  in  my  opinion,  if  any  one  thing 
agricultural  was  more  essential  than  another  to  prosecute  it, 
it  was  an  abundant  supply  of  cotton  and,  as  part  of  doing  my 
bit,  I  descrbed  in  detail  my  system  of  control  in  comparison 
with  the  Bureau's  plan  on  pages  1  to  16  of  my  Circular  No. 

—20— 


152.  The  Secretary  of  Agriculture  claimed  his  department 
was  putting  forth  every  pound  of  its  strength  to  win  the  war, 
but  they  were  deaf  to  any  request  on  my  part  to  either  admit 
that  I  am  right  or  show  what  is  wrong. 

As  the  Argentine  ant  is  spreading  rapidly  over  the  South- 
ern States,  the  Bureau  had  been  invited  by  Mr.  Raker  to  define 
its  position,  and  they  did  it  in  this  way :  "The  Argentine  ant 
is  an  insect  that  makes  its  nests  in  buildings  .  .  .  Mr.  Rein- 
lein's  plan  is  to  use  a  plumber's  torch  to  drive  the  ants,  which 
he  believes  will  carry  their  eggs  and  larvae  with  them  into  the 
open,  where  it  will  be  devoured  by  poultry."  Every  word  is  a 
lie.  The  natural  home  of  the  Argentine  ant  is  outside.  In- 
vasion of  houses  takes  place  chiefly  during  the  periods  of 
scarcity  of  food  outside,  and  they  can  be  easily  killed  or  driven 
away  inside  by  the  use  of  poisoned  sweets,  the  more  quick  act- 
ing the  better,  I  claim,  which  is  also  contrary  to  the  teaching 
of  the  Bureau.  Slow-acting  poison  will  kill  a  larger  number 
before  the  ants  get  wise,  and  leave  for  more  healthy  surround- 
ings, which  is  outside  where,  under  my  plan,  poultry  can  be 
made  to  attack  them.  These  ants  prefer  the  excretions  of 
aphids  and  coccids  to  all  other  food,  and  spend  much  of  their 
time  fostering  these  injurious  insects  and  protecting  them 
against  their  natural  enemies.  I  never  advised  the  use  of  a 
torch  against  this  ant  in  buildings  of  any  kind  including  green- 
houses. Outside,  poultry  given  the  chance  in  quantity,  so  that 
they  can  tackle  the  big  undertaking,  will  subdue  them,  since  the 
nests  of  the  ants  in  summer  are  very  shallow,  merely  deep 
enough  to  exclude  light  and  water.  I  had  pointed  out,  how- 

—21— 


ever,  that  poultry  can  be  helped  in  getting  a  start  by  using  a 
suitable  hot  air  blast  torch,  something  of  the  kind  shown  011 
last  page,  not  a  plumber's  torch.  The  vibrations  given  forth 
by  the  torch  will  drive  the  ants  out  of  their  nests,  together 
with  the  eggs,  larvae  and  pupae. 

To  refresh  the  Entomologist's  memory  of  what  his  assistants 
have  found  in  this  matter,  I  quote:  "In  case  of  danger  the 
workers'  first  instinct  appears  to  be  to  remove  the  voting 
(eggs,  larvae,  pupae)  to  a  place  of  safety  and  they  rearily 
sacrifice  their  own  lives  in  order  to  accomplish  this"  (Een. 
Bull.  No.  122,  p.  40). 

I  had  shown  for  the  past  four  years  that  inasmuch  as 
Louisiana  is  the  original  breeding  ground  of  this  a-it  in  this 
county,  and  this  ant  very  greatly  increases  the  numbers  of  the 
mealy  bug  on  sugar  cane,'  and  the  Bureau  of  Entomology  has 
no  tangible  means  of  control  at  all  against  the  ant  on  sugar 
cane  or  growing  crops  in  general,  the  use  of  poultry  is  the 
only  available  solution  of  the  problem.  Every  insect  thus 
eaten  not  only  means  food  saved  for  man,  but  also  means 
poultry  produced. 

In  the  control  of  insects  affecting  cereal-and  forage  crops 
poultry  grown  on  an  extensive  scale  has  a  very  wide  range  of 
usefulness.  This  point  is  pretty  well  discussed  on  pages  8  to 
15  of  my  Circular  No.  155.  I  had  shown  as  far  back  as  my 
Circular  No.  147  that  there  is  no  better  way  to  control  the 
Rocky  Mountain  locust  at  large  than  by  maintaining  flocks  of 
poultry  to  patrol  the  large  stretches  of  low-priced  and  usually 
nonagricultural  land,  also  subsequently  pointed  out  the  possi- 


bilities  of  poultry  in  the  control  of  many  highly  injurious  tim- 
ber insects,  including  the  gipsy  and  brown  tail  moth  of  New 
England. 

There  is  another  class  of  insects  affecting  cereal  and  forage 
crops  made  up  of  sucking  insects.  Of  these  the  spring  grain 
aphis  is  a  good  representative.  It  is  now  well  understood  that 
if  nothing  is  done  in  the  southern-most  points  where  this  pest 
starts  in  the  spring,  it  does  its  greatest  damage  by  producing 
there  a  progeny  that  spreads  in  vast  numbers  to  the  North. 
As  was  pointed  out  by  me  in  detail  in  my  Circular  No.  144, 
pp.  12  and  13,  the  Bureau  has  nothing  in  the  way  of  direct  con- 
trol other,  than  plowing  infested  patches  of  fields  under 
spreading  straw  over  the  patches  affecteed  and  burning  it,  or 
use  a  10  per  cent  kerosene  emulsion  that  kills  admittedly  only 
about  50  per  cent,  according  to  the  Bureau's  claims,  at  a  cost, 
years  ago,  of  $4.00  per  acre.  None  of  these  means  of  control  is 
satisfactory. 

I  had  shown  as  far  back  as  21  years  ago  that  for  sucking 
insects  there  is  nothing  more  feasible  as  a  means  ot  control 
than  the  use  of  heat  by  a  gasoline  torch,  and  in  my  Circulars 
No.  140,  141,  147  and  subsequent  Circulars  how  torch  outfits 
might  be  constructed  that  furnish  a  blast  for  sucking  insects 
on  any  kind  of  vegetation. In  the  case  of  the  grain  aphis,  for 
instance,  some  such  wheeled  frame  as  that  of  a  hayrake  could 
be  fitted  with  a  tank  holding  gasoline  and  having  any  desired 
number  of  leads  to  blow  a  hot  air  blast  through  the  grain 
plants.  An  automobile  truck  is  better.  Morevover,  I  pointed 
out  as  far  as  21  years  ago  that  such  a  blast  also  destroys  the 
*  —23— 


spores  of  fungi  that  may  be  on  a  plant.  This  use  of  a  blast  thus 
offers  the  only  feasible  means  to  attack  fungus  diseases  on  a 
growing  grain  and  forage  crop.  The  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry 
was  wanted  all  along  to  investigate  this. 

I  had  shown  in  my  Circular  No.  14?  how  these  same  fit- 
tings could  be  used  to  help  make  up  an  outfit  applying  a  hot 
air  blast  too  tall  trees.  Thus,  for  instance,  we  now  have  the  for 
pearthrips  seriously  threatening  the  orchard  industry.  The 
use  of  a  hot  air  blast  is  moreover  not  only  feasible  against  the 
adults  of  the  pearthrips  as  they  appear  at  the  blooming  time, 
but  also  for  the  destruction  of  the  larvae  several  weeks  later. 
These,  by  being  given  a  slight  licking,  drop  to  the  ground, 
where  a  licking  at  close  range  kills  them.  This  matter  is  fully 
explained  in  my  Circular  No.  147,  pp.  8  to  13. 

However,  during  the  past  30  years  certain  other  sucking 
insects  have  come  into  prominence  as  plant  pests  in  general 
and  fruit-and  seed  pests  in  particular.  The  most  important 
of  these  are  found  in  the  group  of  bugs  known  as  stink  bugs." 
Their  increase  in  damage  is  traceable  to  bringing  large  tracts 
of  pasture  lands  under  cultivation,  with  the  consequent  in- 
crease in  succulent  food  supply  and  the  incident  curtailment 
of  the  breeding  places  of  birds,  probably  the  most  important 
natural  enemies  of  theirs.  Of  these  bugs  only  two  have  thus 
far  done  great  damage,  while  others  may  do  so  at  any  time  if 
not  checked  by  suitable  means  of  control. 

The  two  bugs  in  question  are  the  Mexican  conchuela 
(Pentatoma  ligata)  and  the  grain  bug  (Pentatoma)  Chloroch- 
roa  sayi).  The  first  of  these,  with  reference  made  to  the  grain 

—24- 


bug,  is  described  in  Entomology  Bulletin  No.  64,  part  I,  1911, 
and  their  habits  were  discussed  andj  better  means  of  control 
than  given  by  the  Bureau  were  pointed  out  by  me  on  pages 
1  to  16  of  my  Circular  No.  140,  1914. 

Of  the  two  pests  the  grain  bug  was  the  first  to  come  to 
notice  with  a  record  of  having  destroyed  in  1895  40  acres  of 
peas  and  two  acres  of  lima  beans  in  Reeves  County,  Tex. 
(Ent.  Bull.  65,  p.  2),  but  subsequently  the  conchuela  attracted 
the  more  attention  of  the  two.  The  grairi  bug  has  recently 
been  described  in  U.  S.  D.  A.  Bulletin  No.  779. 

In  making  tests  to  control  the  conchuela  Dr.  A.  W.  Mor- 
rill,  the  agent  of  the  Bureau  of  Entomology  making  the  tests, 
also  incidentally  made  use  of  a  gasoline  torch.  After  saying 
that  the  bugs  had  in  a  certain  test  case  in  Mexico,  for  the  time 
being  congregated  in  a  vineyard  of  about  10  acres,  and  that 
each  cluster  of  grapes  was  attacked  by  several  bugs,  and  that 
the  maximum  number  noted  on  a  single  cluster  was  25,  he  says 
the  grapes  were  picked  by  the  owner  without  consultation  with 
him.  "This  step  was,  however,  inadvisable,  since  the  fruit, 
which  was  of  comparatively  small  value,  would  have  served 
as  a  trap  at  which  the  bugs  could  have  been  easily  destroyed 
when  so  thickly  concentrated.  As  it  was,  the  bugs  gathered 
in  groups  of  hundreds  on  the  trellis  posts  and  on  the  vines, 
principally  at  the  forks,  where  they  were  destroyed  partly  by 
spraying  and  partly  by  the  use  of  a  gasoline  blast-torch.  The 
last  mentioned  method,  while  effective  in  its  destruction  of  the 
pest,  injured  the  vines  to  a  certain  extent  in  nearly  all  cases.'* 
(p.  7.) 

—25— 


Admittedly  the  grapes  were  picked  prematurely.  If 
sprayed,  this  quite  likely  interferred  with  their  eating  quali- 
ties. The  expenses,  I  pointed  out  in  my  Circular  No.  140,  p.  8, 
were  many  times  that  of  using  the  torch.  I  also  pointed  out 
that  there  was  no  need  to  injure  the  vines  or  fruit,  if  present, 
since  the  application  of  heat  could  have  been  made  lighter,  but 
be  made  repeatedly.  These  bugs,  moreover,  readily  drop  dur- 
ing the  cool  part  of  the  day.  The  application  could  have  been 
given  during  the  night,  or  anyway  early  or  late  in  the  day 
when  the  dew  is  on,  with  the  bugs  sluggish  and  more  liable  to 
drop,  to  be  killed  at  the  ground  at  close  range. 

Alfalfa  is  given  by  Dr.  Morrill  as  the  crop  the  conchuelas 
are  most  likely  to  congregate  on  in  largest  numbers  in  the 
spring,  and  he  points  out  that  with  no  means  of  control  prac- 
ticed, the  bugs  will  multiply  there  unchecked.  As  a  means  of 
control,  he  suggests  leaving  a  border  of  alfalfa  all  around  at 
cutting  time,  on  which  the  immature  forms  will  congregate, 
to  be  killed  by  kerosene  emulsion.  This,  of  course,  is  awfully 
expensive  on  such  a  bulky  crop ;  also  may  make  this  alfalfa 
nearly  or  entirely  unfit  for  feed.  The  use  of  a  knapsack  torch, 
as  shown  on  last  page,  or  a  mounted  outfit,  having  several 
burners,  would  be  much  better.  Moreover,  the  adults  will  not 
stay  there,  not  only  because  other  crops  will  offer  as  good  or 
better  food,  but  also  because  this  permits  of  a  much  more  free 
distribution  of  their  eggs. 

Thus  is  the  case  cited:  "Shortly  after  the  10th  of  July, 
coincident  with  the  cutting  of  the  alfalfa,  the  bugs  were  no- 
ticed on  the  fruit  of  these  (peach)  trees,  which  was  just  be- 


ginning  to  ripen.  The  trees  soon  became  very  heavily  in- 
fected, and  on  July  20  it  was  not  uncommon  to  observe  from 
10  to  15  on  a  single  peach,  and  in  one  instance  20  were 
counted.  .  .  .  (E.  B.  No.  64,  p.  6.)  For  control  on  peaches 
D'r.  Morrill  recommends  fumigating  the  trees  with  tobacco 
under  tents,  since  "jarring  is  likely  to  shake  off  the  fruit,  and 
many  of  the  bugs  will  escape  by  flying."  The  aim  of  this 
fumigation  is  not  to  kill  the  insects,  for  tobacco  smoke  does 
not  kill  them.  "It  stupifies  them,  causes  them  to  fall  to  the 
ground,  where  they  can  be  easily  and  quickly  killed"  (p.  14). 
This,  be  it  understood,  is  merely  a  proposed  means  of  con- 
trol. The  U.  S.  Entomologist  is  not  anxious  to  have  it  made 
clear  that  this  is  merely  dishing  up  a  theory.  In  practice  it. is 
well  known  that  peach  foliage  is  very  sensitive  to  fumigation, 
especially  during  daytime,  when  the  foliage  is  dry,  and  the 
smoke  is  then  especially  likely  to  cause  the  fruit  to  drop  pre- 
maturely. Even  during  daytime,  when  the  ground  under  the 
trees  is  "neat  as  a  pin,"  there  will  be  trouble  finding  the 
dropped  bugs  to  be  killed,  supposedly  by  crushing  with  the 
foot.  Suppose  you  have  100  trees  to  fumigate — and  the  fumi- 
gating must  be  done,  usually,  repeatedly —  how  many  tents 
will  you  need  to  have  a  ghost  of  show  to  kill  any  appreciable 
part  of  the  whole?  Then  again,  these  bugs  may  attack  vegeta- 
tion, wild  or  cultivated,  too  tall  to  be  covered  by  a  tent,  or  at- 
tack shrubbery  and  plants  growing  wild,  where  the  use  of  a 
tent  is  not  feasible,  aside  from  the  cost,  thus  multiplying  un- 
checked. 

On  pages  13  and  14  of  my  Circular  No.  140,  I  pointed  out 

—27— 


that  the  use  of  a  torch  of  some  such  type  as  shown  on  last  pager 
is  the  most  feasible  means  of  control  to  clear  vegetation  of  all 
kinds.  The  particular  type  of  torch  shown  can  be  hooked  from 
branch  to  branch  in  a  tree,  thus  enabling  the  operator  to  treat 
tall  trees  after  removing  the  shoulder  straps.  However,  for 
tall  vegetation  on  a  large  scale,  such  as  commercial  orchards, 
I  pointed  out,  on  pages  10  to  14  of  my  Circular  No.  147,  some 
torch  outfits  with  a  tank  mounted  high  on  a  wagon  and  hav- 
ing 4  leads,  which  thus  permits  of  having  one  of  two  men  lick 
the  side  of  a  row  each ;  the  bugs,  during  the  cool  part  of  the 
day  will  drop,  to  be  killed  by  a  licking  at  close  range  on  the 
ground  by  the  two  other  men.  As  far  as  possible,  of  course,  it 
is  better  in  the  case  of  these  bugs,  to  use  some  specially  attrac- 
tive trap  crop,  such  as  grain  sown  in  rows  at  such  time  as  to 
head  just  then  and  attract  the  bugs. 

For  control  on  alfalfa,  Dr.  Morrill  suggests  the  construc- 
tion of  a  hopperdozer  on  page  13.  But  the  insects  are  either 
liable  to  drop  off  or  to  fly  off  when  disturbed  by  a  machine.  I 
had  pointed  out  in  my  Circular  No.  140,  p.  3,  as  a  better  way 
that  some  high-wheeled  cart  could  be  fitted  with  a  tank  to  feed 
several  burners  to  lick  the  field  over.  But  I  shall  later  show 
that  giving  poultry,  on  a  large  scale,  the  run  of  the  field,  is  far 
the  best  all-around  means  of  control  on  alfalfa. 

According  to  observations  made  by  the  Bureau  at  Bar- 
stow,  in  West  Texas,  in  1905,  the  conchuelas  were  most  plenti- 
ful on  Milomaize  during  the  first  week  in  August,  as  many  as 
25  of  the  insects  frequently  being  noted  on  a  single  seedhead 
(p.  5).  Evidently  a  tank  mounted  on  some  light  motor  truck 

—28— 


to  supply  several  gasoline  burners  with  hose  and  pipe  to  take, 
say  4  rows  at  a  sweep,  involving  the  use  of  5  persons,  would 
make  quick  work.  If  this  Milomaize  were  rolled  down  so  that 
poultry  could  pick  the  bugs  off,  this  would  be  the  most  advan- 
tageous way.  Evidently  what  is  wanted  is  some  suitable  trap 
crop  that  would  concentrate  the  bugs  as  they  leave  the  alfalfa, 
and  where  the  seedheads  are  low  enough  that  poultry  can 
readily  get  at  the  bugs.  Strips  of  dwarf  millet,  sown  at  inter- 
vals so  as  to  have  some  of  it  heading  in  succession  during  the 
season,  would  probably  be  an  excellent  trap  crop  of  this  kind. 
Such  a  course  is  especially  advantageous  where  attractive 
fruit,  such  as  peaches  or  grapes,  is  to  be  protected. 

"The  principal  natural  food  plants  of  the  conchuela  are 
the  mesquite  and  related  leguminous  plants,  the  beans  being 
the  object  of  attack"  (p.  8)  "under  conditions  in  Western 
Texas  .  .  .  with  the  mesquite-covered  surrounding  districts 
as  a  stronghold,  these  insects  probably  will  become  established 
in  the  alfalfa  fields  each  year  .  .  ."  (p. 12).  This  is  a  hon- 
est admission  that  it  is  at  least  doubtful  that  much  can  be  ac- 
complished by  ".  .  .  destruction  of  weeds  in  the  fall  and 
otherwise  hindering  the  successful  hibernation  .  .  ."  (p.  11). 
As  these  bugs  hibernate  mostly  under  trash  on  the  ground, 
giving  poultry  the  run  of  the  surroundings  of  the  fields  is 
manifestly  the  most  feasible  means  of  control  at  this  period  of 
the  year. 

The  grainbug  seems  to  be  hardiier  than  the  conchuela, 
liaving  been  reported  from  as  far  north  as  Montana  and  East- 
ern Idaho,  indicating  that  the  insect  can  stand  much  cold,  if 

—29- 


the  precipitation  is  limited.  It  does  not  occur  along  the  gi.if 
coast  of  Texas,  which  would  indicate  that  in  a  territory  wii,, 
a  mild  winter  but  a  high  rainfall,  it  is  held  in  check  in  summer 
by  fungus  diseases.  The  insect  appears  to  be  at  present  most 
troublesome,  per  capita  wealth,  in  New  Mexico.  The  insect 
occurs  in  Eastern  and  Western  Washington,  and  Northern 
Oregon,  indicating  that  a  mild,  wet  winter  does  not  hurt  it. 

''The  vital  damage  is  caused  by  the  piercing  of  the  newly- 
formed  heads  of  cereals  and  the  feeding  on  the  liquid  contents, 
by  which  the  formation  of  the  grain  is  prevented,  or  its  weight 
greatly  reduced"  (U.  S.  D.  A.  Bulletin  779,  p.  1).  Just  a  few 
samples:  ".  .  .  in  May,  1903,  one  farmer  in  Arizona  wrote 
that  there  was  an  average  of  about  10  bugs  to  each  head  of 
barley  in  his  40-acre  field  .  .  /'  (p.  2)  "In  July,  1.913,  a  cor- 
respondent wrote  from  Cloudcroft,  N.  Mex.,  that  the  grainbug 
had  ruined  12  acres  of  rye  on  his  ranch  .  .  ."  (p.  3).  "Mr.  H. 
E.  Smith  records  that  at  Roswell,  N.  Mex.,  in  1913.  at  least 
two-thirds  of  the  barley  heads  were  ruined  in  a  field  that  nor- 
mally would  yield  from  -iO  to  60  bushels  per  acre.  At  Porters- 
ville,  Texas,  in  1913,  the  wheat  in  a  150-acre  field  which  prom- 
ised a  yield  of  from  50  to  60  bushels,  threshed  only  22  bushels 
of  very  inferior  grain  per  acre.  ...  In  one  instance  .  .  . 
a  carload  of  oats  averaged  only  18  pounds  per  bushel." 

The  insect  is  well  established  in  Utah  and  Colorado,  in 
Colorado  among  many  other  points  reaching  an  altitude  of 
9,300  feet,  at  Silverton.  No  reason,  then,  why  it  should  not 
find  favorable  conditions  to  exist  permanently  in  Oklahoma, 
Arkansas,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  Wyoming,  Tennessee  and  Ken  - 


tucky,  agricultural  states  supposed  to  b,e  now  free.  Conditions 
for  getting  established  seem  right,  also,  in  other  states  now 
free  as  long  as  the  winters  are  comparatively  mild  and  the 
summers  rather  dry,  hence  the  need  of  effective  means  of  con- 
trol. 

The  foodplants,  mentioned  in  U.  S.  D.  A.  Bulletin  779,  p. 
4,  include  wheat,  barley,  rye,  oats,  milomaize,  kaffir  corn,  cot- 
ton, buckwheat,  peas,  beans,  cabbage,  tomato,  lettuce,  Russian 
'  thistle,  mallow,  sheepweed  and  many  others,  showing  the  in- 
sect to  be  able  to  feed  upon  plants  far  apart  botanically.  The 
list  there  given  fails  to  specify  two  important  food  plants, 
namely,  alfalfa  and  mesquite.  The  insect  produces  4  genera- 
tions in  such  locations  as  the  Imperial  Valley,  in  California,  to 
3  generations  or  less  in  its  northern  range. 

The  fact  that  the  grainbug  has  the  mallow  (Malva  parvi- 
flora)  for  one  of  its  original  foodplants,  indicates  that  this  pest, 
in  cotton  fields,  is  able  to  become  a  first  class  pest,  and  prob- 
ably is  so  already  in  the  Imperial  Valley,  judging  from  what 
the  U.  S.  Entomologist  says  in  his  report  for  1918,  p.  11  "Other 
work  on  cotton  insects  (other  than  the  boll  weevil)  has  been 
carried  on  at  .  .  .  El  Centro,  Cal.,  the  recent  developments 
of  cotton  in  the  last  locality,  in  the  Imperial  Valley,  necessi- 
tating careful  watch  for  cotton  pests." 

Of  course,  it  is  not  necessary  to  "watch  for  cotton  pests" 
after  once  there  "were  developments."  But  it  is  up  to  the 
Entomologist  to  carefully  watch  whether  there  are  not  better 
means  of  control  than  he  is  now  dishing  up.  If  it  is  not  his 

—31— 


business  to  also  watch  what  I  am  dishing  up,  I  want  to  be 
shown. 

The  conchuela  is  already  officially  admitted  to  be  a  first 
class  pest  of  cotton.  My  plan  of  controlling  the  cotton  boll- 
weevil,  and  also  the  bollworm,  provides  for  the  use  of  poultry 
the  year  around,  and  includes  the  use  of  a  trappatch  of  late- 
sown  cotton.  These  plants  in  the  latter  part  of  the  season,  be- 
cause of  their  succulency,  concentrate  the  weevils,  and  will 
also  concentrate  the  conchuela  and  allied  bugs,  where  poultry- 
can  pick  them  off.  This,  then,  usually  obviates  the  need,  of 
attacking  the  bugs  on  the  older  plants  with  a  hotairblast  torch. 

Much  is  said  on  pages  28  to  32,  about  natural  enemies. 
The  cold  fact  is,  the  pest  has  persistently,  rapidly  increased,  in 
spite  of  them,  calling  thus  for  more  efficient  means  of  control 
by  man.  The  means  of  artificial  control  given  on  pages  32  and 
33  are  all  impracticable. 

''The  obvious  method  for  controlling  the  grain  buk  is  the 
destruction  of  their  adults  when  they  are  concentrated  in  their 
hibernating  quarters.  This  is  best  accomplished  in  the  late 
autumn,  during  the  winter  or  in  the  early  spring  by  plowing 
under  or  burning  all  weeds  and  rubbish  in  and  about  culti- 
vated fields  ...  In  many  instances,  however,  the  grain  bug 
adults  migrate  from  considerable  distances,  and  this  circum- 
stance necessitates  a  systematic  clean-up  community  campaign 
in  badly  infested  areas  .  .  ."  (p.  32). 

Nothing  doing,  and  for  several  reasons :  Dr.  A.  W.  Mor- 
rill  admits  that  mesquite  is  a  stronghold  to  the  conchuela. 
Why  not,  then,  such  and  similar  growth  also  to  the  grain  bugr 

— 3_  — 


Where  the  flight  of  insects  to  hibernation  quarters  has  been 
carefully  studied,  as  it  has  been,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  the 
bollweevil,  an  insect  normally  not  much  given  to  flying,  it  has 
been  found  that  specially  suitable  hibernation  quarters,  such 
as  woods,  exert  influence  to  distances  of  miles,  hence  mere 
destruction  in  and  about  the  cotton  fields  -will  not  amount  to 
very  much.  In  the  majority  of  cases  the  fields  affected  by  the 
grain  bug  are  surrounded  by  land  that  is  not  and  usually  can- 
not be  farmed.  Were  the  hibernation  quarters,  not  covered  by 
shrubby  growth,  as  far  as  possible  be  plowed  us,  this  would 
destroy  the  natural  and  usually  at  best  rather  scanty  cover  of 
vegetation,  consisting  mostly  of  native  drouth  resisting 
grasses.  It  has  never  soaked  into  the  thick  skulls  of  the  En- 
tomologist and  such  of  his  men  as  are  willing  to  side  with  him 
in  saying  I  am  wrong  on  every  point,  that  nature  abhors  bare 
ground,  and  covers  it  with  such  vegetation  as  is  suitable,  called 
usually  weeds.  In  truth  these  plants  try  to  remedy  the  harm 
done  by  man  in  destroying  the  better  plants  that  formed  the 
original  covering,  and  which  are  more  slow  in  establishing 
themselves  than  the  plants  called  weeds.  The  lands  affected 
at  present  by  the  bugs  in  question  are  mostly  grazing  lands, 
cultivated  fields  being  operated  either  under  irrigation  or  dry- 
farming  methods.  If  the  range  has  been  kept  grazed  too  close 
by  overstocking,  this  also  in  a  lesser  degree  than  plowing  and 
burning,  superinduces  the  establishment  of  less  desirable 
plants.  Thus  in  reference  to  sheep  weed  (snakeweed, 
Gutierrezia)  you  read  on  page  23  of  U.  S.  D.  A.  Bulletin  No. 
211:  Factors  affecting  range  management  in  New  Mexico:  "In 

—33— 


response  to  the  often-repeated  question  of  how  to  get  rid  of  the 
snake  weed,  there  is  but  one  method  economically  possible, 
and  that  is  to  give  the  grama  grass  a  chance  and  it  will  crowd 
out  the  snake  weed."  In  reference  to  the  Russian  thistle,  you 
read  on  page  24 :  ".  .  .  Ordinarily  it  does  not  seem  to  be  able 
to  crowd  out  the  native  grasses,  but  in  the  dry-farming  areas, 
where  the  sod  has  been  broken  or  the  land  deserted  for  any 
reason,  it  usually  takes  the  ground  completely.  It  also  takes 
badly  overstocked  places  on  the  range,  especially  where  sheep 
have  been  held  too  long.  Whether  the  native  grasses  will  be 
able  to  crowd  their  way  back  into  such  areas  or  not,  still  re- 
mains to  be  seen.  If  they  are  not,  then  the  importance  of  this 
pest  is  increased  many  times."  .  .  .  "Whatever  may  be  said 
of  the  tin  desirability  of  weeds  on  a  range,  there  is  one  thing  to 
be  said  in  their  favor.  Any  vegetable  covering  in  an  arid  re- 
gion is  better  than  none,  since  such  a  covering  prevents,  to 
some  degree  the  removal  of  the  soil."  .  .  .  "To  the  observer 
from  a  humid  climate  perhaps  no  one  characteristic  of  the  arid 
regions  of  the  Southwest  is  so  startling  as  the  evidence  on  all 
sides  as  the  forceful  action  of  water  as  an  erosive  agent.  And 
this  in  a  land  where  water  is  the  one  thing  that  is  everywhere 
lacking."  .  .  .  ''showers  are  mostly  torrential  in  character/' 
...,>•<  .  "Let  such  a  downpour  occur  on  what  seems  to  be  a  flat 
plain,  and  in  a  few  minutes  the  lower  levels  are  flooded,  and 
the  roadbed  of  any  obstructing  railroad  is  apt  to  suffer  severely 
.  .  .  no  one  factor  is  so  efficacious  in  producing  erosion  on 
the  arid  grazing  lands  as  the  more  or  less  complete  removal  of 
their  already  scanty  cover  of  plants  by  overstocking  it  .  .  .<r 

—34— 


(p.  25).  Yes,  except,  of  course,  the  plowing  up  or  burning 
over,  as  recommended  year  in  and  year  out  by  the  learned 
men  of  the  Bureau  of  Entomology. 

The  grain  bug,  hibernating  as  it  does  largely  in  shrubby 
growth  needed  as  a  soil  covering,  can  be  effectively  fought  dur- 
ing hibernation  by  encouraging  the  expanse  of  the  poultry  in- 
dustry. "The  hibernating  adults  .  .  .  generally  are  found 
directly  underneath  the  material  composing  their  hibernating 
quarters  or  in  loose  material  on  the  surface  of  the  ground" 
.  .  .  (U.  S.  D.  A.  Bulletin,  779,  p.  27).  Thus  poultry  will 
find  them  just  where  they  look  for  other  food,  both  animal  and 
vegetable. 

"The  adults  of  the  grain  bug  are  very  numerous  locally 
during  the  time  of  their  emergence  from  hibernation  in  April 
and  May.  In  one  instance  30  adults  were  found  under  a  single 
"cow  chip"  about  6  inches  square  ;  and  a  total  of  175  adults, 
were  found  under  the  dead  weeds  along  a  20-foot  space  of  an, 
irrigation  ditch"  '/''  '.  .  "A  half  grown  chicken  devoured  8 
adults  during  a  single  day  when  placed  in  a  large  outdoor  cage 
with  these  insects.  It  has  been  commonly  reported  by  farmers 
that  a  diet  of  grain  bugs  often  kills  barnyard  fowls,  but  these 
reports  have  not  been  verified"  (p.  32). 

Poultry  are  not  expected  to  live  on  a  diet  of  grain  bugs,  or 
of  range  caterpillars  when  in  the  larval  stage,  or  any  other 
one  animal  food,  or  a  mixture  of  them,  since  that  is  clearly 
contrary  to  their  nature,  but  they  normally  want  a  mixed  diet, 
animal,  vegetable  and  mineral.  Cage  a  man  without  food,  ex- 
cept horseradish,  and  he  will  live  longer  if  he  leaves  the  horse- 

—35— 


radish  alone.  But  give  him  water  to  drink,  and  meat  and  oilier 
food  that  is  not  flavored,  and  he  will  want  to  eat  of  the  hoi-c 
radish  in  preference  to  eating  his  food  unfiavored.  A  chicken 
forced  to  be  without  food  excepting  grain  bugs  might  ii\.' 
longer  by  leaving  them  alone,  but  taken  with  other  food  ,a.n  1 
including  grit,  the  grain  bugs  can  be  expected  to  form  a  health- 
ful part  of  the  whole. 

"Early  in  the  season  the  immature  stages  of  the  first  gen- 
eration of  the  grain  bug  are  concentrated  on  the  tender  plants 
of  Russian  thistle  and  other  native  plants  growing  in  the  waste 
areas  of  cultivated  fields.  At  this  time  the  multiplication  of 
the  species  may  be  restricted  greatly  by  spraying  these  areas 
with  a  strong  insecticide  or  chemical,  thus  killing  insects  and 
other  obnoxious  food  plants  in  one  operation"  (p.  32). 

Such  a  plan  is  not  at  all  practicable  or  desirable.  A  chem- 
ical that  would  destroy  the  food  plants  would  also  injuriously 
act  upon  the  soil,  and  thus  either  prevent  the  growth  of  all 
plants,  or  permit  only  those  of  poorest  food  value  to  gain  a 
foothold.  Moreover,  the  insects  emerge  irregularly,  lunce 
could  not  be  killed  all  in  one  application,  with  the  result  that 
those  emerging  subsequently  would  be  forced  to  congregate 
upon  the  cultivated  crops.  But  the  large  areas  that  would 
have  to  be  treated  and  the  comparatively  small  yield  usually 
secured  on  fields  in  arid  regions  render  the  incidental  expense 
utterly  prohibitive.  On  the  other  hand,  poultry  given  the  run 
will  keep  on  picking  these  insects  off  right  along,  with  other 
kinds.  Besides,  if  natural  enemies  are  to  be  a  factor  at  all, 
they  must  have  a  place  to  hibernate  and  breed. 


"Hand  picking  .  .  .  may  prove  practical"  .  .  .  (p.  3). 
Assuming  any  hand  work  is  practicable,  which  in  general  it 
decidedly  is  not,  the  use  of  a  hot  air  blast  would  do  this  work 
many  times  faster.  A  number  of  torches  operated  from  a 
vehicle  work  relatively  still  faster,  with  less  damage  to  the 
crop.  But  with  poultry  kept  going  the  year  around,  they  will 
usually  take  care  of  the  bugs  as  a  matter  of  course. 

"It  has  often  been  suggested  that  a  hopperdozer  might 
be  employed 'to  collect  the  adults  and  nymphs  of  the  grain  bug 
while  they  are  feeding  on  the  heads  of  the  grain.  An  opera- 
tion of  this  kind,  however,  would  be  complicated  by  the  fact 
that  the  insects  generally  drop  to  the  ground  when  closely 
approached.  Then,  too,  at  the  time  when  most  of  the  injury 
by  the  grain  bug  occurs,  the  condition  of  the  grain  is  such  that 
the  passage  of  any  collecting  machine  would  result  in  con- 
siderable damage  to  the  crop"  (p.  33).  "In  grain  fields  the 
feeding  is  confined  to  medium  sized  and  rapidly  growing  heads 
of  immature  seed.  After  the  grain  reaches  the  "dough"  stage 
the  insect  ceases  to  feed  upon  it  .  .  ."  (p.  23).  "The  grain 
bug  adults  are  very  conspicuous  objects  in  the  field,  owing  to 
their  large  size  and  tendency  to  seek  the  upper  part  of  each 
plant  when  feeding  or  resting  on  the  grain  heads.  On  clear 
days  ...  at  least  95  per  cent  of  the  adults  present  in  the 
vicinity  may  be  seen  without  moving  any  part  of  the  plants. 
When  disturbed,  however,  most  of  the  adults  immediately 
drop  to  the  ground  and  seek  cover"  (p.  24). 

All  this  shows  that  the  most  feasible  way  to  attack  the 
grain  bug  on  grain  consists  in  the  use  of  poultry  on  an  ample 

—37— 


scale  to  handle  the  work,  and  do  this  the  year  around.  To 
have  poultry  thus  available  in  a  paying  way  it  is  necessary  to 
give  poultry  the  run  of  the  surroundings  of  the  fields,  that  they 
may  be  able  to  pick  up  most  of  their  sustenance  in  the  winter, 
a  matter  that  may  have  to  be  regulated  by  law,  since  these 
surrounding  lands  may  belong  to  somebody  else.  This  kept 
up  in  the  spring  and,  if  necessary,  during  the  summer,  as  long 
as  bugs  in  quantity  feed  on  the  forming  heads,  holds  the  pest 
in  check. 

When  the  grain  crops  are  harvested  the  bugs  go  to  other 
food  plants  then  forming  heads,  such  as  late  grain,  milomaize 
and  volunteer  grain.  As  near  as  feasible,  poultry  can  be  used 
to  pick  them  off.  The  use  of  a  gasoline  outfit  on  a  truck  is 
naturally  far  the  most  feasible  artificial  means  of  control  where 
poultry  cannot  reach  them.  With  steps  taken  to  have  trap 
crops  heading  up  till  frost,  where  poultry  can  get  at  them,  this 
will  greatly  decrease  their  chances  for  damage  the  following 
year.  Probably  some  suitable  variety  of  millet,  sown  at  suc- 
cessive periods,  will  answer  well  for  traps.  The  aim  must  be 
to  concentrate  the  bugs  upon  low  growing  vegetation  for  at- 
tack by  poultry  or  the  torch,  and  thus  keep  tall  vegetation, 
such  as  peach  trees  or  grapes,  free  of  them. 

Indications  are  strong  that  this  pest  will  rapidly  become 
of  great  importance  in  California — unless  soon  checked  by 
proper  measures,  as  here  outlined — the  mild  winters,  the  dry 
summers  and  great  variety  of  food  supply  being  specially  fa- 
vorable to  its  multiplication.  At  present  the  pest  is  reported 
from  southern  and  central  California. 

—38— 


There  is  also  danger  that  a  new  wheat  thrips,  described  in 
the  Journal  of  Agricultural  Research,  Vol.  No.  3,  or  other 
related  spjecies,  may  become  very  plentiful  and  widely  dif- 
fused, and  become  first  class  pests  of  wheat  and  other  grain 
crops.  The  species  in  question,  while  preferring  wheat,  can 
readily  subsist  and  reproduce  on  several  strong  growing 
grasses.  These,  indeed,  seem  to  be  the  original  food  plants  of 
the  species,  and  under  primitive  conditions  the  insect  seems  to 
have  been  readily  kept  in  check  both  by  parasitic  insects  and 
a  lesser  supply  of  succulent  food  after  midsummer.  This 
thrips  occurs  in  all  parts  of  Kansas,  and  in  some  adjoining 
territory.  There  are  4  to  5  generations  a  year. 

"Thrips  were  common  ...  appearing  in  swarms  on 
young  wheat  in  early  March,  1914.  By  the  first  of  April  the 
larvae,  now  nearly  grown,  were  cutting  the  shoots  severely. 
...  By  the  middle  of  May,  when  the  wheat  was  heading,  the 
second  brood  of  larvae  readily  infested  the  young  heads,  feed- 
ing upon  the  stamens,  pollen  and  pistils,  and  later  attacking 
the  integument  of  the  grain  ...  as  soon  as  volunteer  wheat 
pushed  up  in  early  September  the  thrips  were  found  in  all 
parts  of  the  field.  .  .  ,"  (p.  222). 

These  insects,  if  numerous  enough,  can  completely  destroy 
a  grain  field.  The  official  means  of  control  proposed  are  not 
worth  anything;  and,  if  so,  there  is  now  the  door  open  for 
their  unlimited  increase. 

Burning  of  the  stubble  is  suggested  as  being  of  value. 
But  the  insect  is  then  present  in  large  numbers  as  pupae  in  the 
ground,  to  emerge  with  the  fall  rains,  similar  as  does  the  Hes- 


sian  fly,  and  attack  the  wheat.  Besides,  the  wheat,  for  best 
results  as  to  soil  conditions  and  rotation,  should  have  been 
seeded  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  winter  to  clover  or  grass. 
Also,  the  insect  can  feed  and  breed  in  the  grasses  surrounding 
the  field. 

Instead  of  following  the  Bureau's  plan  in  this  and  other 
cases  by  trying  to  control  the  insect  by  producing  conditions 
as  unfavorable  for  multiplication  as  possible  by  the  destruc- 
tion of  food  plants,  it  will  be  found  infinitely  better  to  fight 
the  insects  by  the  use  of  a  trap  patch,  same  as  described  for 
the  Hessian  fly,  and,  if  necessary,  by  attacking  the  hibernated 
adults  as  they  ovjposit  on'  the  young  wheat  in  the  spring  with 
a  multiple  torch.  Such  use  of  heat  is  the  only  contact  in- 
secticide cheap  enough  to  be  used  on  a  grain  or  forage  crop. 

Upon  the  issuance  of  my  Circulars  No.  155  and  156,  Hon. 
Gilbert  N.  Haugen,  Chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on 
Agriculture,  had  been  asked  to  guard  the  interests  of  the  pub-i 
lie  by  having  the  Department  of  Agriculture  define  its  position 
in  regard  to  the  points  at  issue.  If  the  Department  of  Agricul-j 
ture  mad«  any  reply  of  any  kind,  I  have  not  heard  of  it. 


The  Reinlein 

Knapsack 
Gasoline  Torch. 

Patent  No.  739,221 
Sept.  15,  1903 


—40— 


456541 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  ou  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  pferiod. 


